Follow-up Comment #7, task #15760 (project administration): [comment #6 comment #6:] > > > > I don't think I understand this. Copyright and license notices are not written by software, and some parts of the files in question are hand-written; why people are likely to think that the notices are added automatically? > > Yes, the articles are largely hand-written. So if users see exactly the same boilerplate text in every newsgroup article, they are liable to think that that part of the article has not been hand-written but rather automatically inserted by the software.
Copyright of the code generally doesn't cover the output of the program, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL, so this would be wrong; on the other hand, if the developers know that certain notices shall apply to some particular generated files (e.g. articles in the tarball), it's OK for those files to have the respective notices automatically added, like in the output of the GNU standard option _--version_. If the confusion be a real problem, it can be addressed with a note in the documentation or next to the notices in the files themselves. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?15760> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.nongnu.org/
